Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37200369›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Clinicians' perspectives and experiences of providing cervical ripening at home or in-hospital in the United Kingdom.

Cassandra Yuill, Mairi Harkness, Chlorice Wallace, Helen Cheyne, Mairead Black, Neena Modi, Dharmintra Pasupathy, Julia Sanders, Sarah J Stock, Christine McCourt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Cassandra YuillCentre for Maternal and Child Health Research, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3918-5917
Mairi HarknessNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.
Chlorice WallaceCentre for Maternal and Child Health Research, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Helen CheyneNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.
Mairead BlackAberdeen Centre for Women's Health Research, The Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Neena ModiFaculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Dharmintra PasupathyReproduction and Perinatal Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Julia SandersSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Sarah J StockMRC Centre for Reproductive Health, Institute for Regeneration and Repair, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4308-856X
Christine McCourtCentre for Maternal and Child Health Research, School of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR127569
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Induction of labour, or starting labour artificially, is offered when the risks of continuing pregnancy are believed to outweigh the risks of the baby being born. In the United Kingdom, cervical ripening is recommended as the first stage of induction. Increasingly, maternity services are offering this outpatient or 'at home', despite limited evidence on its acceptability and how different approaches to cervical ripening work in practice. There is also a paucity of literature on clinicians' experiences of providing induction care in general, despite their central role in developing local guidelines and delivering this care. This paper explores induction, specifically cervical ripening and the option to return home during that process, from the perspective of midwives, obstetricians and other maternity staff. As part of a process evaluation involving five case studies undertaken in British maternity services, interviews and focus groups were conducted with clinicians who provide induction of labour care. The thematic findings were generated through in-depth analysis and are grouped to reflect key points within the process of cervical ripening care: 'Implementing home cervical ripening', 'Putting local policy into practice', 'Giving information about induction' and 'Providing cervical ripening'. A range of practices and views regarding induction were recorded, showing how the integration of home cervical ripening is not always straightforward. Findings demonstrate that providing induction of labour care is complex and represents a significant workload. Home cervical ripening was seen as a solution to managing this workload; however, findings highlighted ways in which this expectation might not be borne out in practice. More comprehensive research is needed on workload impacts and possible lateral effects within other areas of maternity services.

Indexed as

MidwiferyOxytocicsCervical RipeningFemaleHospitalsHumansLabor, InducedOutpatientsPregnancyOxytocics

Identifiers

PMID37200369
PMCPMC10194850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.